M RAMAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined service in the Forest Department as Forester on 11.02.1958 and he was promoted as Ranger on 11.11.1972. THE Chief Conservator of Forests, the second respondent herein, who is the disciplinary authority, placed the petitioner under suspension on the ground that an enquiry into the grave charges against the petitioner was contemplated. Suspension order dated 30.09.1991 was issued under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. While placing the petitioner under suspension, the second respondent appointed the Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry Circle, Madurai as an Enquiry Officer.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, since the suspension was contemplating an enquiry, the second respondent ought to have framed a charge sheet and further, he could not appoint the Enquiry Officer before issuing charge sheet. But the second respondent followed a peculiar procedure by appointing the Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry Circle, Madurai, as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges, without even framing a charge memo. The second respondent directed the Enquiry Officer himself to frame charges and also to conduct enquiry on the charges.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid punishment order dated 25.02.1994 before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who is the appellate authority and the appellate authority allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner by an order dated 02.06.1995. In para 5 of the said order, it has been held that the disciplinary authority committed error in permitting the Enquiry Officer to frame charges and to enquire into the matter and that he cannot act both as a Prosecutor as well as a Judge. THE appellate authority remitted the matter to the second respondent to proceed from the stage at which the defect had crept in.